Getting away with murder in New Jersey - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 03-01-2007, 03:35 PM

with witnesses at risk, murder suspects go free

From the article -

Quote:

Dozens of New Jersey murder cases have been undone over the past five years after witnesses were killed, disappeared before trial or changed their stories.

In 2004, the Newark police determined that four people found dead in a vacant lot had been killed to silence a witness to a murder; a witness to that quadruple homicide was later shot to death as well.

With the 'stop snitching' campaign that's become a mainstay of the street gangs and rap artists, would YOU publicly testify as a witness to a murder trial in New Jersey? knowing that witnesses are frequently murdered to prevent their testimony?

Quote:

In both Baltimore and Boston, where “stop snitching” campaigns by rap artists and gang leaders have urged city residents not to cooperate with the authorities, prosecutors estimate that witnesses face some sort of intimidation in 80 percent of all homicide cases.

In Essex County, prosecutors report that witnesses in two-thirds of their homicides receive overt threats not to testify, with defendants and their supporters sometimes canvassing witnesses’ neighborhoods wearing T-shirts printed with the witnesses’ photographs or distributing copies of their statements to the police.

Now would you?

Quote:

“No one wants to solve these cases and lock up the killers in these cases more than we do,” the county prosecutor, Paula T. Dow, said in a recent interview. “But we have to weigh the evidence and move forward only if we believe that the witnesses are credible and that they’ll be there to testify at trial.”

no witness protection program here, just a concern that you'll show up to testify....thank you New Jersey.

Quote:

Gregory DeMattia, chief of the Essex County prosecutor’s homicide division, said his investigators saw fallout from witness intimidation every day. When they arrive at a crime scene, he said, bystanders scatter so neighbors will not think they are cooperating with the police.

Read the whole article and still ask yourself if you would testify. Now, what is the one thing that New Jersey could do to help this situation, yet refuse to do? Acknowledge the right to bear arms so people can protect themselves.

The Second Amendment is about the individual right, not a BS states militia crap.

Astrocloud · 03-01-2007, 07:40 PM

Seems like the problem resides with law enforcement:

Quote:

In recent years Newark police officials have accused the prosecutor of being reluctant to take on cases that could be difficult to win because her office was criticized after losing a succession of high-profile trials.

The police director, Garry F. McCarthy, worries that the prosecutor’s approach undermines his crime-fighting strategy of focusing on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

“The law states the standard for arrest is probable cause, which is different than what is required for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” Mr. McCarthy said. “Our goal is to arrest quickly to avoid the potential for additional crime. An arrest does not prevent an ongoing investigation from proceeding.”

Ms. Dow declined to discuss details of any open cases. But she said that she was proud of her office’s performance, and that she hoped her rigorous standards for filing charges would lead investigators to work harder at getting corroboration.

“It’s easy for the police to point fingers when they haven’t done enough detective work to get a conviction,” she said.

So either move out of New Jersey or fight for the rights of citizens to carry lightsabers.

Bill O'Rights · 03-02-2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

Seems like the problem resides with law enforcement:

I know that I'm going to regret this...but...where does it seem that the problem resides with law enforcement?

Thug commits crime.

Police investigate, and subsequently arrest thug.

Thug sits in jail. (good for street cred, later)

Thug's Thug buddies coerce witnesses into not testifying against thug.

No witnesses...no case.

Case thrown out...thug back on street.

Thug commits crime.

Lather...rinse...repeat.

What would you have the police do? I ask that seriously. I mean...they're doing their jobs. I suppose they could just summarily execute these little hoodlems in the streets. But, although that'd be no huge loss to society, I don't really think that any of us want to go down that path.

So...I'm putting you in the Director's chair. The day shift is assembled, and ready to be briefed. What are your orders?

Astrocloud · 03-02-2007, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I know that I'm going to regret this...but...where does it seem that the problem resides with law enforcement?

Did you read the article directly underneath the quote that you posted? It seems that the answer to your question resides there.

Bill O'Rights · 03-02-2007, 06:24 AM

So...your orders then, are to bring on additional detectives to handle the caseload? How many more do you feel might be needed to accomplish the task, and at what cost to the taxpayer?

Or...would you like to install a C.S.I lab, like on television, where tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources, and man hours, are expended on each and every case file?

Personally...I don't think that this is the fault of law enforcement. If witnesses are being coerced into not testifying against a suspect, then what are the police to do?

reconmike · 03-02-2007, 06:26 AM

Welcome to Jersey, where the weak are killed and eaten.

ObieX · 03-02-2007, 07:54 AM

Eh.. its just Newark really.. Bulldoze it into the sea - problem solved! There's still the odor, but thats only a problem if you don't live here.

reconmike · 03-02-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Eh.. its just Newark really.. Bulldoze it into the sea - problem solved! There's still the odor, but thats only a problem if you don't live here.

You cant do that because then the state would become a republican state

mixedmedia · 03-02-2007, 09:09 AM

This is a horrible dilemma for both law enforcement and the justice system, but I'm not sure how the victims having guns is going to solve it. Seems like a reach and certainly not a long-term solution. In fact, as it seems to me, guns are a big part of the problem.

dksuddeth · 03-02-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This is a horrible dilemma for both law enforcement and the justice system, but I'm not sure how the victims having guns is going to solve it. Seems like a reach and certainly not a long-term solution. In fact, as it seems to me, guns are a big part of the problem.

law enforcement cannot protect the witnesses. The county attorneys office cannot protect the witnesses. A gun in the witnesses hand just MIGHT afford them some protection if a thug enforcer decides to try to make good on the threat. If the witness feels he/she can defend themselves, you just might find witnesses who won't forget what they saw.

Rekna · 03-02-2007, 11:32 AM

Somehow DK is able to take any article and make it a reason why people should own more guns and bigger guns.

How many gun control threads do we need DK? This article is an interesting article in the context of how the government can prosecute and protect witnesses. However the article has no merit for discussion within the context of gun control.

jorgelito · 03-02-2007, 12:21 PM

While every citizen is afforded, the right to defend themselves (through the bearing of arms), it is not the only, singular solution. Rather, it is a component of a more comprehensive plan composed of an armed citizenry (properly trained), better community ties between police and citizens, community welfare (safe parks, schools, centers of activity) - providing outlets and safe alternatives.

It is one thing to tell the people to rise up against the gangsters, but you need to have a framework in place so that these people aren't left hanging in a vulnerable position.

So in other words, a problem like this would need to be attacked at different levels: addressing societal ills, resources, law enforcement, parenting, community, self-defense, neighborhood watch, neighborhood diligence.

I think that is reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Somehow DK is able to take any article and make it a reason why people should own more guns and bigger guns.

How many gun control threads do we need DK? This article is an interesting article in the context of how the government can prosecute and protect witnesses. However the article has no merit for discussion within the context of gun control.

While DK is certainly...enthusiastic about his cause, I agree that there is relevance to the main article. I do not agree with the seemingly one-dimensionality of the argument though. It is up to the individual to present their "case" and make a convincing argument or what-have-you.

I think the gun-control aspect is a fair point when addressing the protection of witnesses (citizenry). Could be more cost-effective too. Instead of assigning overworked police officers getting overtime or extra security, the witness can utilize their own Constitutional right to protect themselves (bear arms). I would also agree that this is not the ONLY point or solution.

mixedmedia · 03-02-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

law enforcement cannot protect the witnesses. The county attorneys office cannot protect the witnesses. A gun in the witnesses hand just MIGHT afford them some protection if a thug enforcer decides to try to make good on the threat. If the witness feels he/she can defend themselves, you just might find witnesses who won't forget what they saw.

Are people not allowed to own guns in New Jersey?

*edit* all I've found is a proposal to make it so that citizens cannot buy more than one handgun a month? Is this a problem? Or are you proposing making it mandatory for people to own guns just in case they witness a murder?

I'm confused.

Astrocloud · 03-02-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

So...your orders then, are to bring on additional detectives to handle the caseload? How many more do you feel might be needed to accomplish the task, and at what cost to the taxpayer?

Or...would you like to install a C.S.I lab, like on television, where tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources, and man hours, are expended on each and every case file?

Personally...I don't think that this is the fault of law enforcement. If witnesses are being coerced into not testifying against a suspect, then what are the police to do?

The article says nothing about caseload.

The police are arresting people and the prosecuter is not charging them. Here let me quote, underline and bold. Forgive me for not doing this before:

Quote:

The police director, Garry F. McCarthy, worries that the prosecutor’s approach undermines his crime-fighting strategy of focusing on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

In fact the police chief and the mayor are saying the same thing. If people are going after witnesses -the absolute most dumbest thing you can do is give in and stop the process. This is essentially "giving in to terrorism".

And by the way, yes if the answer is to hire more cops -then hire more cops. A few seizures ala RICO should pay for the additional riot gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

law enforcement cannot protect the witnesses. The county attorneys office cannot protect the witnesses. A gun in the witnesses hand just MIGHT afford them some protection if a thug enforcer decides to try to make good on the threat. If the witness feels he/she can defend themselves, you just might find witnesses who won't forget what they saw.

It seems like the end all -be all response from gun enthusiasts (-kind of like the magical force that flows through the universe). Even if a "witness" dies in a shootout with gangsters who's left to protect his loved ones? Is the gun always in the hand or is it holstered sometimes? Does the witness ever forget to "check his six"?

Sorry, you need the force and a lightsaber for the ultimate protection.

Paq · 03-02-2007, 08:35 PM

sounds to me like enough people in jersey have guns (the wrong type people, that is...)

seriously...i don't think having a shootout at the jersey turnpike (couldn't think of anything of note in jersey) would be the answer. I agree with most who have responded: it's not exactly a 1 solution problem. I think it will take a social change and a community involvement over just arming citizens randomly. heck, the neighborhood i live in now used to be a drug riddled/crime riddled area where gunshots were heard on a daily basis...and after some community involvement and a definite commitment by the people to kick out the bad elements, it's one of the fastest growing/safest neighborhoods around the town.

amazing what a different group of people can do to an area....[/end smarkiness]

Bill O'Rights · 03-02-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

While every citizen is afforded, the right to defend themselves (through the bearing of arms), it is not the only, singular solution. Rather, it is a component of a more comprehensive plan composed of an armed citizenry (properly trained), better community ties between police and citizens, community welfare (safe parks, schools, centers of activity) - providing outlets and safe alternatives.

It is one thing to tell the people to rise up against the gangsters, but you need to have a framework in place so that these people aren't left hanging in a vulnerable position.

So in other words, a problem like this would need to be attacked at different levels: addressing societal ills, resources, law enforcement, parenting, community, self-defense, neighborhood watch, neighborhood diligence.

I think that is reasonable.

I agree 110%. The community must be given the resources, the confidence and the drive to help combat this problem on the ground level. Without community involvement, all of the police presence in the world isn’t going to help. Conversely, the community needs the teeth of law enforcement to back them up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Are people not allowed to own guns in New Jersey?

*edit* all I've found is a proposal to make it so that citizens cannot buy more than one handgun a month? Is this a problem?

I am a supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe in the right of the people to keep and to bear arms. However…that is not without it’s limitations. For example…I see no need for John Q. Citizen to own an assault weapon. (AR-15, AK-47…what have you) Those are offensive weapons, whereas handguns are defensive weapons. Those that were in the military will know what I’m talking about. All of that said…I do not feel that it is unreasonable that citizens cannot buy more than one handgun a month. Average Joe isn’t going to buy any more than that. Even a collector shouldn’t feel inhibited by this simple restriction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

The article says nothing about caseload.

The police are arresting people and the prosecuter is not charging them. Here let me quote, underline and bold. Forgive me for not doing this before:

Quote:

The police director, Garry F. McCarthy, worries that the prosecutor’s approach undermines his crime-fighting strategy of focusing on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

Bud…seriously….you’re losing me here. I consider myself…a fairly intelligent man, but I’m having trouble following your thinking. Help me. Way up yonder, you posted that you felt that the fault lay with law enforcement. Ok…I wanted to know how you would handle it as a law enforcement administrator. Now it seems that you’re placing the blame on the prosecutor's office. I would think that you would want to focus on the small group of criminals responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

Look...from my personal experience...and you can take it or leave it...the cops have no friends. None, zero, zilch, nada. They are in a constant battle with street crime (a given), then again with the very public that they are trying to protect, and yet again with the very judicial system that they are trying to work within. There is no way to come home clean, and it doesn't was off. It blows big huge sticky chunks...trust me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

If people are going after witnesses -the absolute most dumbest thing you can do is give in and stop the process. This is essentially "giving in to terrorism".

That’s easy to say. These people live in abject fear of these hoodlums. If they do testify against one of these “gangstas”, and his “homies” come to extract their pound of flesh, then, as you say, who's left to protect his loved ones?

Willravel · 03-02-2007, 10:10 PM

It's blatantly clear from the OP that dksuddeth isn't just happy with one gun control thread. We need to have dozens operating at once, each repeating the other in an ode to redundancy. The points have been made in
Politics:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113913
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=111816
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105072
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107305
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106611
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103363
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102216
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102069
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102181
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100027

General Discussion:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101510

Weaponry:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106839
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106888

Can we have a combined thread for gun control please? I tried keeping up with the multiple incarnations once before and found myself getting frustrated that I was having to repeat myself again and again and again.

Speaking to the specific case of gun control brought up: It's sad that the local police are so inept/corrupt/etc. that they cannot protect whitenesses. What should be going on is a magnifying glass on the police, who's job it is to protect citizens, like the whitenesses, from criminals. If they have any indication that a whiteness might be in danger, then you do what you can to protect them. Post a car outside their home. Make sure they stay in public areas (if the whiteness complains, they might do well to be reminded that their life is in danger). Do what's necessary to get their job done. If they need more money, then all they need to do is show the fatality rate of whitenesses and they should get what's necessary to keep people safe.

Astrocloud · 03-02-2007, 10:57 PM

Bill,

I thought you were a fairly intelligent man. How come you didn't read my whole post but rather only read a part of it and argue against the parts that you felt were easier to argue?

It's not as if I changed my story at all. Here let me underline and bold again:

The Prosecutors office is part of law enforcement. This isn't a novel concept -if the police are arresting someone on Monday and the prosecutors office is releasing them on Tuesday -then the problem lays with law enforcement. This is patently clear from the article if it is read in it's entirety.

Here is yet another link to the New York Times article entitled "Scared Silent:
With Witnesses at Risk, Murder Suspects Go Free":
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/ny...in&oref=slogin

ubertuber · 03-02-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's blatantly clear from the OP that dksuddeth isn't just happy with one gun control thread. We need to have dozens operating at once, each repeating the other in an ode to redundancy....

I'm not saying this is ideal, but allow me one small moment of devil's advocacy:

Remember Abramoff?

With that out of the way, dk, it might be a good idea to contain your thoughts to fewer threads. There are people here like will who really do want to converse in good faith, but it's pretty hard to keep up with what's going on in which place.

Bill O'Rights · 03-02-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's sad that the local police are so inept/corrupt/etc. that they cannot protect whitenesses. What should be going on is a magnifying glass on the police, who's job it is to protect citizens, like the whitenesses, from criminals. If they have any indication that a whiteness might be in danger, then you do what you can to protect them. Post a car outside their home. Make sure they stay in public areas (if the whiteness complains, they might do well to be reminded that their life is in danger). Do what's necessary to get their job done. If they need more money, then all they need to do is show the fatality rate of whitenesses and they should get what's necessary to keep people safe.

I don't think that the police have a problem protecting the whitnesses. It's the blacknesses that they seem to running into problems protecting.

Sorry...it was there. I had to take it.

Will...real life is not as simple as a one hour TV police drama. Manpower is strained, and the paperwork alone is staggering. Even on a simple bust. It boggles the average mind, believe me.

And, when was the magnifyng glass ever off of the police? No other profession is more highly scrutinized. None.

As far as getting what's necessary to keep people safe...they aren't getting that now. The general public would scream bloody murder, and justifiably so, at the cost of placing police presence on every single street corner...which is what it would take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Can we have a combined thread for gun control please?

Ummm...no. Just as there will be no combined thread for Bush bashing.

Look...I know that many of dksuddeth's posts and threads center around the topic of gun control. You'd be a blithering fool not to see it. But, it's obviously an issue that he feels strongly about. He has the right (albeit annoying at times) to voice his opinion. I seem to recall many upon many of your posts randomly bashing Bush, and asking myself: "What the hell does that have to do with the price of stock shares in China?". See what I mean?

And, dksuddeth...if you are following this, and I know that you are, then take a little friendly advice. Find a couple of other causes to champion. Round yourself out a bit. If you didn't try to inject your second amendment views every single chance that you possibly get...you might actually reach more people with your message. Think...Evangelical, or Fundamentalist. Y'know how annoying, and off turning, they can be? Make sense, now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

The Prosecutors office is part of law enforcement. This isn't a novel concept -if the police are arresting someone on Monday and the prosecutors office is releasing them on Tuesday -then the problem lays with law enforcement. This is patently clear from the article if it is read in it's entirety.

NOW I see the problem. NO...no...no. The Prosecutor's Office is not part of law enforcement. Good God, man...don't ever say that to a cop. The Prosecutor's Office is part of the judicial system...that's all. The only lawyer that a cop hates worse than a DA, is a defense attorney.

I can, however, see where one could make that mistake. I guess, on some level, it makes sense. But it's akin to saying that dogs and cats are canines. They may both be animals, but not all canines. I'm tired and not making sense anymore, I know.

flstf · 03-03-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

NOW I see the problem. NO...no...no. The Prosecutor's Office is not part of law enforcement. Good God, man...don't ever say that to a cop. The Prosecutor's Office is part of the judicial system...that's all. The only lawyer that a cop hates worse than a DA, is a defense attorney.

I can, however, see where one could make that mistake. I guess, on some level, it makes sense. But it's akin to saying that dogs and cats are canines. They may both be animals, but not all canines. I'm tired and not making sense anymore, I know.

I also always thought that prosecutors and police were on the same team in regards to the judicial system. The police arrest, the prosecutor charges and the defendant must go elsewhere for investigation and council to try and refute the charges. Maybe I watch too much television.

kutulu · 03-05-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Now, what is the one thing that New Jersey could do to help this situation, yet refuse to do? Acknowledge the right to bear arms so people can protect themselves.

The Second Amendment is about the individual right, not a BS states militia crap.

Nice strawman you have there, why am I not surprised?

The 2nd Amendment applies everywhere and last time I checked (just now), you can CCW in NJ.

Witness intimidation is no new thing, it's happened everywhere. Also, screw the witness protection program. If you are a criminal and you have to use it to save your ass that is one thing, but I'm not taking my family's life away from them to put someone in jail. I care about my family first. If I can help your case I will but I'm not doing it at a cost of forcing my family to cut off all ties with everyone they have ever known and spending the rest of my life wondering if I'll be found. Call me selfish, I really don't care.

MSD · 03-10-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

The 2nd Amendment applies everywhere and last time I checked (just now), you can CCW in NJ.

Out of 3000 permits in a stat of 8 million, almost all are held by retired armed forces personnel and police officers. Concealed carry among civilians is virtually non-existant as the applicatoin process requires proof of overwhelming need unless you work in security. McGreevey had stated his intent to make NJ the first handgun-free state when he was governor, and handgun ownership is pretty much limited to violent criminals and those who are willing to break the law to defend themselves.

dksuddeth · 03-24-2007, 10:40 AM

This is what happens when THE ONLY ONES (cops and military) are allowed guns and the citizens aren't.

2nd police attack alleged

Quote:

Bar video reportedly shows beating of 4

By David Heinzmann
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 25, 2007
Prosecutors are investigating allegations that six off-duty Chicago cops were caught on a downtown bar's video camera beating four businessmen, the second such incident in recent months, law enforcement sources said.

In the Dec. 15 beating at the Jefferson Tap and Grille, one alleged victim required reconstructive surgery on his face and another suffered four broken ribs, said Sally Saltzberg, a lawyer for the men.

Other bar patrons called 911. But when patrol officers responded, the off-duty officers involved allegedly spoke to them and the patrol officers left without intervening, sources said.

Security cameras inside and outside the bar recorded most of the beating, said Saltzberg, who said she has not seen the tape herself.

Law enforcement sources have described the content of the video to the Tribune.

The probe began with a complaint to the Office of Professional Standards. The Cook County state's attorney's office is considering criminal charges against the officers, sources said.

Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said she could not comment on the ongoing investigation, but she acknowledged that Supt. Philip Cline is aware of the case.

Details of the incident have emerged in the wake of accusations that Chicago Police Officer Anthony Abbate beat a woman Feb. 19 at a Northwest Side bar. The incident also was caught on the bar's security video. Charges against Abbate, 38, were upgraded this week to felony aggravated battery, from a misdemeanor.

Off-duty at the time of the attack, he is accused of beating bartender Karolina Obrycka at Jesse's Short Stop Inn because she refused to serve him another drink.

Saltzberg said the four men beaten at Jefferson Tap are frustrated that, given the existence of the video, no formal action has yet been taken.

"My clients are incredibly disappointed and they're angry," she said. She said they also remain fearful of retribution from police officers.

Saltzberg filed a petition Feb. 27 in Cook County Circuit Court seeking the names of the officers, but said Friday she has not been given the information. The petition is a precursor to a lawsuit, but the men have not formally filed suit.

The four businessmen--two of whom are traders at the Chicago Board of Trade--were shooting pool at the bar, 325 N. Jefferson St., when, Saltzberg said, they were jumped without provocation. The men--brothers Aaron and Barry Gilfand, Adam Mastrucci and Scott Lowrance--contend they had no contact with the officers before the attack as the bartender announced last call shortly before 2 a.m., Saltzberg said.

Law enforcement sources confirmed Saltzberg's account.

Barry Gilfand, who manages a restaurant, came to the bar with his brother, a private investor, after he closed the eatery. They were met by Lowrance and Mastrucci, who are traders.

As he stood at the billiards table, Aaron Gilfand was approached by a large man who said something to him, Saltzberg said. Because of the bar noise, he didn't hear the man's remark and just responded, "Sure, man," she said.

He then was grabbed from behind by another man who put him in a chokehold and threw him to the floor, she said.

Simultaneously, the other three men were attacked and thrown to the floor, Saltzberg said. Lowrance allegedly was knocked unconscious immediately. Barry Gilfand was dragged out onto the sidewalk, she said, where he was beaten.

Through Saltzberg, all four men have declined to speak on the record about the incident.

The men claim that two police squad cars and a police wagon arrived while they were on the sidewalk outside the bar. Aaron Gilfand ran up to one of the police cars and begged the officers to help his brother, who still was being hit, Saltzberg said.

The video depicts one of the off-duty officers, who is a sergeant, waving off a responding officer, a law enforcement source said. The responding officers then left the scene.

After the incident, the Gilfands and Mastrucci ran to the front entrance of Lowrance's home, which is nearby, and watched as the men who beat them left, Saltzberg said.

While Aaron Gilfand was being treated at Northwestern Memorial Hospital for his facial wounds, Saltzberg said, he was photographed by a Chicago police officer who arrived at the hospital. All four men have been interviewed by investigators and have viewed photo lineups multiple times. Some of them were able to positively identify the men involved in the attack in the lineups, Saltzberg said.

The men's legal demand for the names of the officers will come before a Cook County judge on April 2, Saltzberg said.

But we should implicitly trust our elected officials and police protectors, right?

connyosis · 03-24-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This is what happens when THE ONLY ONES (cops and military) are allowed guns and the citizens aren't.

So very true. Here in Sweden where we have very strict gun laws, we begin our days by getting beat up by cops at 8 in the morning, usually before breakfast. At lunch the military usually raid our workplaces and shoots random people just for the hell of it. If you're lucky enough to survive until evening, the only way to get home is to sneak past snipers in the trees, something that is REALLY hard to do in the summer with all the leaves.
Oh, and if you call 911 to ask for help, they trace the call and send a SWAT team to your location that tries to break as many bones in your body as possible without having you pass out. The national record is 145 set in 1997 on a 80 year old woman.

Paq · 03-24-2007, 08:04 PM

conny...that..ruled!!!

serious story here, but i was working on my car thursday, looked up when i heard a commotion and saw 2 dudes pointing guns at a group of about 10 others screaming "GET THE FUCK BACK" over and over again. now, if i'd had a gun, i felt like i could have gotten involved...but since i didn't, guess what...called the cops and ..gee, they were there in 2 minutes and the whole thing was broken up w/out a single shot fired...my amatuerish ass probably would have shot someone orrr i would have been...

just sayin, sometimes, it's better to let the pros handle it. .

reconmike · 03-25-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

conny...that..ruled!!!

serious story here, but i was working on my car thursday, looked up when i heard a commotion and saw 2 dudes pointing guns at a group of about 10 others screaming "GET THE FUCK BACK" over and over again. now, if i'd had a gun, i felt like i could have gotten involved...but since i didn't, guess what...called the cops and ..gee, they were there in 2 minutes and the whole thing was broken up w/out a single shot fired...my amatuerish ass probably would have shot someone orrr i would have been...

just sayin, sometimes, it's better to let the pros handle it. .

But Paq the whole point of this thread is the "pros" aren't handling it, and witnesses are ending up dead.
In Jersey it is next to impossible to get a CCW permit, I went through the whole process years back to get a ccw to do armed security, here in Jersey you first have to prove the need to ccw to your local police chief, self protection WILL NOT get you a permit, the town I live in is extremely democratic to the point of serious corruption, population is well over 100,000 people.
My police chief went through my app with me and asked me if I thought I could handle the responsibility of carrying, I told him of my experience with weapons, he was still going to deny me.
I then showed him my military ID that authorized me to carry while in uniform.(I was a prisoner transporter at the time), then he authorized my ccw, but he still gave me a really bad time about it.

dksuddeth · 03-27-2007, 04:44 PM

Here's some more of that chicago professionalism in law enforcement.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/illi....asp?id=294901

The beauty of this one is that it happened mid december of last year, yet is only breaking the surface news now......and these cops are still on duty. How safe do you feel chicagoans?

Quote:

Off-duty police, barroom beatings and videotape.

The Chicago Police Department on Monday again fielded uncomfortable questions about those subjects after accusations arose that six off-duty police officers assaulted four men in a bar, breaking the nose of one man and breaking the ribs of another.

It’s the second time in less than a week that claims surfaced of such misbehavior by off-duty officers at Chicago bars. Both incidents were captured on videotape, though in the most recently reported case police have declined to release the footage.

According to Steven Fine, a lawyer for the four men, the six officers “kicked, punched and stomped” his clients at the Jefferson Tap and Grille in the West Loop, dragging at least one of the men outside.

At one point during the early morning attack on Dec. 15, an on-duty officer responded to a 911 call, spoke to one of the off-duty officers, then left, Fine said. Later, other police arrived and did speak to Fine’s clients, but no arrests were made.

Charges, Fine argued, should have been filed by now.

“Had it been a typical bar fight there would have been an arrest made that night,” he said. “They have enough evidence to make an arrest, and it just seems to be a case where they’re protecting their own.”

Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said Monday that the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is investigating. No one has been charged.

The videotape is evidence and so would not be immediately released, she said.

“Hopefully we’ll have something that we can release very soon,” she said.

Fine said he’ll ask a judge April 2 to grant him access to the video. He also wants the judge to order the release of the names of the officers accused of being involved.

Astrocloud · 03-27-2007, 07:54 PM

That bar is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Clearly if the Chancellor would repeal execute order 66 -then once more we could have peace in the Galaxy.

Outlaw lightsabers and only the Sith will have lightsabers.

Bill O'Rights · 03-28-2007, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

Outlaw lightsabers and only the Sith will have lightsabers.

Ok...even I've got to admit...that was pretty damn funny.

Astrocloud? You get a point for that.

The_Jazz · 03-28-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Here's some more of that chicago professionalism in law enforcement.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/illi....asp?id=294901

The beauty of this one is that it happened mid december of last year, yet is only breaking the surface news now......and these cops are still on duty. How safe do you feel chicagoans?

I must be an idiot because I'm going to immediately shoot holes in my own response, but since you asked: I feel pretty safe. Bar fights aren't anything new here. I've seen several in my years here, and mostly they're just entertaining since they usually involve a bunch of frat boys trying to be "bad". The exceptions are where people get hurt, and both of the recent cases fall into that catagory. The one on Belmont Avenue (with the female bartender) was a drunk off-duty cop, and I don't see where the police did anything wrong until they tried to sweep it under the rug. When the video hit the airwaves, they crafted a much better response and fired the guy.

The rumor on the street in the Loop is that story you're hearing about the fight on Jefferson (with the 6-on-4 fight) is one-sided. From what I heard, more words were exchanged than have been alleged and one of the traders took the first swing. Again, that's just a rumor I've heard from some folks and I don't know where it originated since those folks weren't there. Again, the police didn't do anything wrong until the cover-up started. After all, cops are allowed to go get drunk when they're off duty, just like the rest of us. It's when they do illegal things that things can get hairy, especially if those things are more serious than parking violations or speeding tickets.

Here's where I start shooting myself in the foot:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...bate28.article

Yes, the on-duty cops tried to stop the media, issued tickets for parking in their lot and generally made nuissances of themselves. I understand standing behind your brother officers and all that, but I honestly don't get why you would do this petty shit if you've seen the tape of what the officer did to the bartender. If I were a Chicago cop, I would have arrested my brother officer, maybe not happily but to stop him from sullying my image. But that's me.

Rekna · 03-28-2007, 01:33 PM

DK the muslim world and gang land has taught us that if everyone owns a gun then more people will die in gun related deaths. When everyone is packing people are more likely to pull out a gun when something happens (like a bar fight). Then once one person pulls a gun others do. It only takes one person to start a gun fight. The old west was ruled by everyone own guns and how did that work out for them?

dksuddeth · 03-28-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

DK the muslim world and gang land has taught us that if everyone owns a gun then more people will die in gun related deaths. When everyone is packing people are more likely to pull out a gun when something happens (like a bar fight).

There will always be stupid people no matter how much legislating is done. It can't be helped. The sensible ones will avoid this crap while still having the ability to defend themselves. Personally, if idiots want to go out, get drunk, and shoot up each other.......so be it. The stupid will then die out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Then once one person pulls a gun others do. It only takes one person to start a gun fight. The old west was ruled by everyone own guns and how did that work out for them?

the 'wild west' is a fallacy started by the anti-gun groups to make you envision clint eastwood movies and gunfights at OK corral in the attempt to make you think that bullets would be thick as fireflies. The 'wild west' was not nearly as wild as they would have you believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

If I were a Chicago cop, I would have arrested my brother officer, maybe not happily but to stop him from sullying my image. But that's me.

I have to say, as admirable a stand as that would be, you wouldn't last very long on the force.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/3...arol28.article

Quote:

Jon Burge and Torture (1973-1991):

To this very day, Mayor Daley and the city Law Department continue to pay the fees of a raft of lawyers, expensive outside legal counsel, to defend the indefensible. Even though the city already has paid millions in settlements for what Burge and his boys did to force murder suspects to confess (electrodes on testicles, suffocation and cattle prods), even though the city admitted years ago that "an astounding pattern of torture" existed, the city still defends Burge in current federal cases. And Daley, who was the Cook County state's attorney for many of the years when Burge and his gang were brutalizing suspects, has yet to have a candid conversation with the public or the courts about how it could have happened under his and other public officials' watch.

Oh, one other thing.

Not a single solitary police officer, prosecutor or judge has ever come forward to testify about what Burge did to make his cases. Make no mistake, a number of them knew.

Joseph Miedzianowski, Cop, Dope Dealer, Gun Runner:

One of the worst officers ever to wear a badge was also one of the department's shining stars and most protected players. No less than Raymond Risley, head of Internal Affairs during Meidzianowski's ruthless reign, defended him in the face of growing evidence he was a violent, corrupt, menacing thug. Even though Miedzianowski went to prison, it took 15 years and a federal jury to acknowledge the damage that this one cop did to, among others, two federal agents who desperately tried to get the city to investigate the danger he posed to the community. As a result, for years Miedzianowski terrorized those agents. Last month, the jury awarded them $9.75 million in damages, obligating us taxpayers to pony up for the city's failure.

SOS -- The Still Growing Special Operations Scandal:

Last summer, the elite Special Operations Section of the Chicago Police Department saw the indictment of four highly decorated cops. Police Officer Jerome Finnegan and members of his unit are charged with home invasion, robbery and the ripoff of drug dealers they were investigating. Along the way, they allegedly robbed and terrorized people who were not drug dealers but simply immigrant workers who kept cash in their homes. Did Internal Affairs know about the allegations? You bet. Did it promptly and aggressively investigate? Absolutely not. Is the scandal going to get worse? Count on it.

you've got a serious problem in your city when your 'elected' leaders do all that is possible to cover these things up. they certainly aren't going to give a damn about your life or safety over their political career.

jorgelito · 03-28-2007, 06:51 PM

Sorry Rekna, I vehemently disagree with you on that. Gangs for the most part do not own "lawful" guns. I won't even go into all that is wrong with the Muslim gerneralization.

Unless, we invoke the NO ONE AT ALL has guns theory. I could be for that if you could guarantee me that no one else has a gun, thereby negating my need for one (something like that).

Gangs shoot each other because they are criminals engaged in criminal activity. Most people, and lawful citizens who own guns do NOT go around shooting them off randomly.

Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if everyone owned guns, then people would be LESS likely to get into fights or shoot them off (sort of a mini MAD effect). Besides, many bars and places of entertainment already have "No Weapons" policies and metal detectors. The problem with "gun control" and like-minded attitudes, is that type of thinking will leave lawful citizens without the means to protect themselves against the criminals who have "illegal" guns.

Put it this way; if you were a criminal, would you be more or less likely to attack, assualt, rob etc a person if you knew or suspected your intended victim had a gun? Criminlas for the most part are "path of least resistance" operators. They usually don't choose big, buff macho marines to rob or assault. They pick their victims based on ease of success, opportunity etc. A criminal will be less likely to attack someone if the probablility existed they had a gun.

Classic example: criminals scope their potential targets - The house with the NRA sticker, marines flag and big Chevy truck parked out front? Or, house with the Grateful Dead stickers, Greenpeace flag and hybrid car in the driveway?

The other problem with your argument is the claim that more guns = more gun related deaths. Well, then we should ban swimming pools because if we build more swimming pools then there will be more swimming pool related deaths. Incidentally, more people die from swimming pool related deaths than hand guns in the US.

Maybe we should ban cars and bacon since both of those cause way more deaths.

(sorry for the hasty and abrubt post, I'm in a rush).

The_Jazz · 03-29-2007, 05:53 AM

As some of you know, one of my assistants is married to a Chicago cop. He's one of several that I know fairly well. Anyway, I received a forwarded email this morning with this response to the Carol Marin article that dksuddeth posted:

Quote:

Ms. Marin,

I just finished reading your article in today's Sun-times. Once again, you're leading the charge against the law enforcement profession. I ask myself, what has made you a police-hater and when did you become an expert on police matters?

I find it appalling that you, and most of the other media outlets in this city, continue with your one-sided reporting. Of the 13,000+ Chicago police officers it seems that you choose to report on the .5% that are dirty. What about the rest of these men and women who risk their lives daily to serve and protect complete strangers? Oh right, the stories of those men and women do not sell newspapers or bring in ad revenues. It's as if nobody in your profession cares to get the whole story anymore. Like everything else, it's about the almighty dollar. Is that what they're teaching in Journalism 101 these days?

I had the pleasure of attending a book signing last week at FOP, Chicago Lodge 7 headquarters. The authors of 'End of Watch, Chicago Police Officers Killed in the Line of Duty' were on hand to talk about the book which commemorates the lives of the 500+ Chicago police officers killed in the line of duty. What I noticed most, Ms. Marin, was that you were not on hand to cover this story. Neither were most of the other media outlets in the city of Chicago. ABC 7 was the ONLY channel in attendance. 500+ men and women! Yet those in the media continue to give the most attention to a very small percentage of officers.

I preside over a public charity that each year honors two deserving police officers for going above and beyond the call of duty. Officers from the same mold as my brother Mike who was killed on duty in August 2004. Each of the last two years we have sent a press release to all media outlets. Besides a couple of local papers covering the story, I have received ZERO media coverage of the TRUE BLUE Awards. I do not have Carol Marin on hand to interview the winners. These are the men and women who should be paraded in front of the camera and written about day after day. Not the scum that have made an already difficult profession even more dangerous.

Ms. Marin, my brother lived and breathed police work. He was the first person in the locker room each shift and rarely took a break while on duty. He and his partner accumulated 44 felony arrests in the eight week period before he died. Mike was truly in the zone. Yet nobody covered that story. Of course, they covered his funeral. Who doesn't want to see a grieving widow or crying child? Who doesn't want to see shattered parents and siblings? I'm sorry, Ms. Marin. My brother's life, not his death, was the story. Just like the other men and women of the CPD.

Thank you for contributing to the demise in stature of our police officers. This year's TRUE BLUE Awards will be held on Sunday, November 11. I know you'll be first on hand to cover the 'story.'

Respectfully,

John E. Gordon
Brother of Michael P. Gordon, CPO (EOW 08/AUG/2004)

Let's face it, police corruption sells advertising both in the paper and on TV. Honestly, the other ceremonies mentioned here aren't news. Just like a kid in a bad school getting good grades and a good job isn't news.

03-02-2007, 06:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	So...your orders then, are to bring on additional detectives to handle the caseload? How many more do you feel might be needed to accomplish the task, and at what cost to the taxpayer? Or...would you like to install a C.S.I lab, like on television, where tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of resources, and man hours, are expended on each and every case file? Personally...I don't think that this is the fault of law enforcement. If witnesses are being coerced into not testifying against a suspect, then what are the police to do? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

03-02-2007, 06:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Welcome to Jersey, where the weak are killed and eaten. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-02-2007, 07:54 AM	#7 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Eh.. its just Newark really.. Bulldoze it into the sea - problem solved! There's still the odor, but thats only a problem if you don't live here. __________________ We Must Dissent.

03-02-2007, 09:09 AM	#9 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	This is a horrible dilemma for both law enforcement and the justice system, but I'm not sure how the victims having guns is going to solve it. Seems like a reach and certainly not a long-term solution. In fact, as it seems to me, guns are a big part of the problem. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

03-02-2007, 08:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	sounds to me like enough people in jersey have guns (the wrong type people, that is...) seriously...i don't think having a shootout at the jersey turnpike (couldn't think of anything of note in jersey) would be the answer. I agree with most who have responded: it's not exactly a 1 solution problem. I think it will take a social change and a community involvement over just arming citizens randomly. heck, the neighborhood i live in now used to be a drug riddled/crime riddled area where gunshots were heard on a daily basis...and after some community involvement and a definite commitment by the people to kick out the bad elements, it's one of the fastest growing/safest neighborhoods around the town. amazing what a different group of people can do to an area....[/end smarkiness] __________________ Live. Chris

03-02-2007, 11:32 AM	#11 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Somehow DK is able to take any article and make it a reason why people should own more guns and bigger guns. How many gun control threads do we need DK? This article is an interesting article in the context of how the government can prosecute and protect witnesses. However the article has no merit for discussion within the context of gun control.

03-02-2007, 10:10 PM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's blatantly clear from the OP that dksuddeth isn't just happy with one gun control thread. We need to have dozens operating at once, each repeating the other in an ode to redundancy. The points have been made in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113913 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=111816 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=105072 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=107305 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106611 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=103363 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102216 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102069 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=102181 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100027 General Discussion: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101510 Weaponry: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106839 http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=106888 Can we have a combined thread for gun control please? I tried keeping up with the multiple incarnations once before and found myself getting frustrated that I was having to repeat myself again and again and again. Speaking to the specific case of gun control brought up: It's sad that the local police are so inept/corrupt/etc. that they cannot protect whitenesses. What should be going on is a magnifying glass on the police, who's job it is to protect citizens, like the whitenesses, from criminals. If they have any indication that a whiteness might be in danger, then you do what you can to protect them. Post a car outside their home. Make sure they stay in public areas (if the whiteness complains, they might do well to be reminded that their life is in danger). Do what's necessary to get their job done. If they need more money, then all they need to do is show the fatality rate of whitenesses and they should get what's necessary to keep people safe.

03-02-2007, 10:57 PM	#18 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Bill, I thought you were a fairly intelligent man. How come you didn't read my whole post but rather only read a part of it and argue against the parts that you felt were easier to argue? It's not as if I changed my story at all. Here let me underline and bold again: The Prosecutors office is part of law enforcement. This isn't a novel concept -if the police are arresting someone on Monday and the prosecutors office is releasing them on Tuesday -then the problem lays with law enforcement. This is patently clear from the article if it is read in it's entirety. Here is yet another link to the New York Times article entitled "Scared Silent: With Witnesses at Risk, Murder Suspects Go Free": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/ny...in&oref=slogin

03-24-2007, 08:04 PM	#26 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	conny...that..ruled!!! serious story here, but i was working on my car thursday, looked up when i heard a commotion and saw 2 dudes pointing guns at a group of about 10 others screaming "GET THE FUCK BACK" over and over again. now, if i'd had a gun, i felt like i could have gotten involved...but since i didn't, guess what...called the cops and ..gee, they were there in 2 minutes and the whole thing was broken up w/out a single shot fired...my amatuerish ass probably would have shot someone orrr i would have been... just sayin, sometimes, it's better to let the pros handle it. . __________________ Live. Chris

03-27-2007, 07:54 PM	#29 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	That bar is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Clearly if the Chancellor would repeal execute order 66 -then once more we could have peace in the Galaxy. Outlaw lightsabers and only the Sith will have lightsabers.

03-28-2007, 01:33 PM	#32 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	DK the muslim world and gang land has taught us that if everyone owns a gun then more people will die in gun related deaths. When everyone is packing people are more likely to pull out a gun when something happens (like a bar fight). Then once one person pulls a gun others do. It only takes one person to start a gun fight. The old west was ruled by everyone own guns and how did that work out for them?

03-28-2007, 06:51 PM	#34 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Sorry Rekna, I vehemently disagree with you on that. Gangs for the most part do not own "lawful" guns. I won't even go into all that is wrong with the Muslim gerneralization. Unless, we invoke the NO ONE AT ALL has guns theory. I could be for that if you could guarantee me that no one else has a gun, thereby negating my need for one (something like that). Gangs shoot each other because they are criminals engaged in criminal activity. Most people, and lawful citizens who own guns do NOT go around shooting them off randomly. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that if everyone owned guns, then people would be LESS likely to get into fights or shoot them off (sort of a mini MAD effect). Besides, many bars and places of entertainment already have "No Weapons" policies and metal detectors. The problem with "gun control" and like-minded attitudes, is that type of thinking will leave lawful citizens without the means to protect themselves against the criminals who have "illegal" guns. Put it this way; if you were a criminal, would you be more or less likely to attack, assualt, rob etc a person if you knew or suspected your intended victim had a gun? Criminlas for the most part are "path of least resistance" operators. They usually don't choose big, buff macho marines to rob or assault. They pick their victims based on ease of success, opportunity etc. A criminal will be less likely to attack someone if the probablility existed they had a gun. Classic example: criminals scope their potential targets - The house with the NRA sticker, marines flag and big Chevy truck parked out front? Or, house with the Grateful Dead stickers, Greenpeace flag and hybrid car in the driveway? The other problem with your argument is the claim that more guns = more gun related deaths. Well, then we should ban swimming pools because if we build more swimming pools then there will be more swimming pool related deaths. Incidentally, more people die from swimming pool related deaths than hand guns in the US. Maybe we should ban cars and bacon since both of those cause way more deaths. (sorry for the hasty and abrubt post, I'm in a rush).